Gary Rodrigues earned $8.58 million leading Star One Credit Union in 2023. Over the past decade, his institution grew assets by 31 percent. Brett Martinez earned $3.18 million at Redwood Credit Union—less than half of Rodrigues—yet delivered 269 percent asset growth, the highest in our 664-institution analysis. The paradox captures something essential about executive compensation in the credit union industry: more money doesn't automatically buy more growth.
Finleet Intelligence matched a decade of IRS Form 990 filings against NCUA 5300 Call Reports for every state-chartered credit union with publicly available compensation data. The goal was simple: determine whether higher CEO pay correlates with better outcomes for members. The answer is nuanced.
Data Currency: This analysis uses 2023 IRS 990 filings (the most recent complete year). Growth metrics are calculated through Q4 2024. All 20 highest-paid CEOs confirmed active as of Q3 2025. Analysis will update when 2024 Form 990 filings become available.
The Headline Finding: Higher Pay, Higher Growth—Sort Of
Split the 602 state credit unions with complete data into quartiles by CEO compensation, and a pattern emerges. The top quartile—CEOs averaging $1.81 million annually—led institutions that grew assets 145 percent over the decade. The bottom quartile, averaging $296,000, delivered 92 percent growth.
That 53 percentage point gap looks significant. Top-quartile credit unions nearly tripled their membership growth rate compared to the lowest-paid cohort (62 percent versus 23 percent). Loan growth showed similar divergence: 167 percent for top earners, 118 percent for bottom.
But here's where the data gets complicated. The statistical correlation between CEO pay and asset growth comes in at just 0.134—a weak relationship that explains roughly 2 percent of the variance in outcomes. Higher-paid CEOs do tend to lead faster-growing institutions, but the connection is far from deterministic. Plenty of modestly compensated leaders outperform their higher-paid peers.
The Eight-Million-Dollar Question
At the top of the compensation ladder, outcomes diverge dramatically. Gary Rodrigues at Star One and the unnamed CEO at CommunityAmerica ($8.04 million) represent opposite poles of executive performance. CommunityAmerica grew 156 percent under high-cost leadership. Star One, despite having the industry's highest-paid chief executive, delivered below-median growth.
The difference illuminates a fundamental challenge for compensation committees: mega-pay packages often reflect institutional complexity, market competition for talent, and deferred compensation accumulated over decades—not a direct investment in growth. Rodrigues's figure includes retirement benefits and deferred pay that create year-to-year volatility in reported compensation.
Sundie Seefried at Partner Colorado Credit Union earned $7.79 million and delivered 122 percent growth—respectable but not exceptional. Jeff Adams at Horizon Credit Union earned $6.17 million and produced 224 percent growth. Darren Williams at Wescom Central took home $5.82 million while growing assets 125 percent.
Then there's Martinez at Redwood. His $3.18 million represents less than half of the top earners, yet he delivered the dataset's highest growth: 269 percent in assets, 276 percent in loans, 94 percent in members. Martinez has led Redwood for 11 years. That tenure matters.
The Martinez Effect
Brett Martinez's performance at Redwood Credit Union defies the assumption that top growth requires top pay. Earning $3.18 million—37% of the highest-paid CEO—he delivered 269% asset growth, 276% loan growth, and nearly doubled membership. His 11-year tenure suggests consistency compounds more than compensation.
What Predicts Growth Better Than CEO Pay?
If individual CEO compensation explains only 2 percent of growth variance, what explains more? Two factors stand out: executive team depth and the presence of a dedicated CFO.
Credit unions with seven or more paid executives grew assets 129 percent over the decade, compared to just 84 percent for those with skeleton crews of one to three executives. The 45 percentage point gap suggests that investing in leadership depth—surrounding the CEO with capable lieutenants—produces better outcomes than concentrating resources in a single salary.
Similarly, the 491 credit unions with a dedicated CFO grew 124 percent, versus 97 percent for the 111 institutions without one. The average CFO earned $339,000—a fraction of CEO pay—yet their presence correlates with a 27 percentage point growth advantage. For boards weighing where to invest compensation dollars, the data suggests a CFO hire may deliver better ROI than a CEO raise.
These findings hint at a broader truth: credit union performance depends on institutional capacity, not individual brilliance. The CEO matters, but so does the team. A $2 million CEO with a thin executive bench may underperform a $800,000 CEO surrounded by capable deputies.
The Tenure Premium
Among the highest-performing CEOs in the dataset, a pattern emerges: long tenure. Martinez, Adams, and Larry Tobin of Fairwinds Credit Union all show 11 years of consecutive filings—the maximum trackable in our dataset. All three delivered triple-digit growth across assets, loans, and members.
Adams turned Horizon Credit Union into a Washington State powerhouse, growing assets 224 percent and more than doubling membership. Tobin's Fairwinds expanded assets 166 percent while growing loans 218 percent. These are executives who had time to implement multi-year strategies, build institutional culture, and compound their advantages.
By contrast, several high-paying institutions show CEOs with just one year of tenure—typically indicating a recent succession. CommunityAmerica and Partner Colorado both appear to be under relatively new leadership despite their multi-million dollar compensation packages. Whether these executives will match the performance of long-tenured peers remains to be seen.
The implication for boards: CEO retention may matter as much as CEO compensation. An executive who stays for a decade and grows assets 200 percent creates more member value than a series of highly-paid short-termers who each deliver 50 percent before departing.
The Causality Problem
Does high compensation cause growth, or do growing institutions simply pay more because they can afford it? The data can't definitively answer this question, but the weak correlation (0.134) suggests the relationship runs both directions. Successful institutions attract expensive talent. Expensive talent sometimes drives success. Scale enables compensation. Compensation sometimes enables scale.
What's clear is that compensation alone isn't destiny. Star One's $8.58 million CEO and Baylor Health Care System Credit Union's million-dollar executive both presided over underwhelming performance. Meanwhile, dozens of executives earning under $500,000 delivered growth that embarrasses their higher-paid peers.
The most honest interpretation: CEO pay is a trailing indicator, not a leading one. Boards pay for complexity, market position, and accumulated tenure—factors correlated with institutional success but not causally linked to future growth. A board that raises CEO pay expecting mechanical growth improvement will likely be disappointed.
The Board's Dilemma
Compensation committees face an uncomfortable truth: paying more doesn't guarantee better outcomes. The data supports competitive pay to attract and retain talent, but not the assumption that adding $500,000 to a CEO's package will add 50 basis points to growth. Focus instead on executive team depth, CFO capability, and tenure stability—factors with stronger correlations to performance.
What This Means for Members
Credit union members are ultimately owners. When a CEO earns $8 million while delivering 31 percent growth, members should ask whether that compensation reflects value creation or institutional inertia. When a CEO earns $3 million and delivers 269 percent growth, members benefit directly from effective leadership at reasonable cost.
The analysis doesn't suggest that CEOs should work for peanuts. Top-quartile pay correlates with top-quartile growth, on average. But the variance within quartiles exceeds the variance between them. Outstanding performance comes at all compensation levels; disappointing performance does too.
For members evaluating their credit union's leadership, the lesson is to look beyond headline compensation. Ask about tenure stability. Ask about executive team depth. Ask whether the CFO position is filled. These factors predict growth as well as or better than CEO pay—and they're the factors that boards can directly influence.
The Bottom Line
State credit unions paying top-quartile CEO compensation grew 53 percentage points faster than bottom-quartile institutions over the past decade—145 percent versus 92 percent. That gap is meaningful. But the weak statistical correlation (0.134) means compensation explains almost none of the variance in individual outcomes.
The highest-paid CEO delivered below-median growth. A CEO earning less than 40 percent of that figure delivered the best growth in the dataset. Executive team depth and CFO presence correlate more strongly with performance than CEO pay alone. And long-tenured leaders consistently outperform.
For boards, the implication is clear: pay competitively to attract talent, but don't expect dollars to mechanically produce results. Build deep executive teams. Retain effective leaders. And recognize that the CEO earning $800,000 who stays for 15 years may create more member value than the $2 million executive who departs after four.
As credit unions face sustained margin pressure, regulatory scrutiny, and an aging executive cohort, the distinction between compensation as reward and compensation as strategy will only become more important.
Methodology
Finleet Intelligence analyzed IRS Form 990 filings (2013-2023 tax years) for 1,670 state-chartered credit unions, matched with NCUA 5300 Call Reports (Q4 2014 through Q4 2024). Final sample includes 602 credit unions with complete 10-year growth data and CEO compensation of at least $250,000. CEO compensation defined as reportable compensation plus other compensation from Form 990 Part VII Section A. Growth calculated as (2024 value - 2014 value) / 2014 value. Correlations computed using Pearson coefficient.
Data Sources: IRS Form 990 filings (2013-2023), NCUA 5300 Call Reports (2014-2024), Finleet Proprietary Analysis
Limitations: IRS Form 990 required only for state-chartered credit unions; federally-chartered institutions excluded. Compensation includes deferred pay and retirement benefits, creating year-to-year volatility. Growth metrics combine organic performance with acquisitions.
Update Schedule: Analysis will refresh when 2024 IRS Form 990 filings become available (expected Q3 2025).